Should recruiters look at CVs at all in 2022?

The fake keywords might pass the ATS but wouldn't pass the recruiter especially if these skills do not match the job description.

Yeah - hiring for culture fit seems more and more important than for technical skills - as they are something motivated employees can earn over time. We are trying to solve this problem at Mindpal: https://www.producthunt.com/prod...

I think traditional CVs should become obsolete at some point. Candidates struggle to write them in a way that presents their strengths and recruiters can't really trust what they read. I hope recruitment tests will become a standard practice for candidate filtering instead.

I think they should look at them, but it shouldn't be the reason someone gets a job over someone else. A real recruiter should be able to spot keyword stuffing from a mile away and prevent these candidates from getting an unfair advantage. If you're interested, we just launched today and would love your support: www.producthunt.com/posts/fresco-3

I'm sure that they'll always be around. What are the other alternatives to resumes? Could be a good product idea. LinkedIn sort of fills a role, but we definitely need a more effective medium of relaying experience, skills, and etc.

Of course they should. There are more steps following after the CVs, so one cannot pass with fake information or just hot keywords. The face-to-face meeting gives much valuable information and I think is more important. However, CVs are important too as you get a general view of the candidate. Btw, we’re launching in the mid of June. Check out our upcoming PH page: www.producthunt.com/upcoming/eff... Our project is called: Effecto. It’s an app for detailed habits, health, symptoms, and meds tracking. Pretty much for everything that is related to your physical or mental health and every daily factor that can affect you.

I have been told my cover letter got me the job. Granted the job was heavy in communication, but many jobs are. A well-written cover letter says so much, especially if it's been tailored.

I think what resumes mainly do is signal competence and more importantly social proof. Some years ago in a less globalized setting and smaller professional circles people probably mailed each other references much more for this purpose - "I think Nikolaos is very good, and since you already trust my opinion you should hire him" (the academic world still works like that, probably since there are fewer experts by field and it's just plain smaller), but this is now impossible to do in a global economy (see Dunbar's number etc). So it makes a lot of sense for recruiters to look for those things otherwise, but the issue is that since you write your CV, some things are easier to verify than others, and I wouldn't blame recruiters for looking at those markers first (well regarded university degrees, well regarded previous employers...) As a consequence of this I assume that people who are regarded as competent otherwise (have a website, are famous speakers etc.) don't need the CV at all. I think LinkedIn already shows the competence/social proof part to some degree.

It might be time to hire tech specialists according to their skills. The rising of new AI tools is cutting expenses where they're not necessary and empowering recruiters with new skills, like reviewing a candidate's repo. It's a great way to better match companies and candidates. We've built => rankode.ai to be free, fast and super easy to use!